Torts
Class Notes
Yesterday, we concluded intentional infliction of mental
distress. We learned if you’re a third
party, you can recover only if you’re present and the defendant knows or with
substantially certainty that you’re present. Family members need not suffer physical harm,
but can show emotional harm to recover.
In
some jurisdictions, presence is not required. Cole thinks that presence is an artificial
requirement that covers most cases. We
figure if you intend to inflict emotional distress on someone, they have to be
here. The presence requirement is proof
that you intended to cause emotional distress.
In those few cases that it is foreseeable to the defendant when he
causes the harm would have the effect of causing intentional infliction of
mental distress on a third party, in particular family members, isn’t it pretty
clear that the family member should be able to recover?
The
good thing about the presence rule is that it’s a bright line rule.
Trespass
to Land
The
intent for this tort is intent to enter.
It’s not an intent to cause harm or anything
else. Mistake does not negate intent
here either.
You
own a “reasonable space” above and below your property.
Courts
will take common law doctrines and bend them to make cases fit. In Bradley, the court
says that you must demonstrate actual damages, which leaves the plaintiff out
of luck as far as an intentional tort claim.
You can sue for trespass only if there is actual damage to your
property.
Rogers v. Board of Road Com’rs for Kent County
The
plaintiff’s husband died because the county left up a post that they were
supposed to take down and he ran into it with his mower.
The
Board had a license to install a snow fence.
The
wife files a suit for trespass to land and for negligence. The Board files a motion to dismiss, and it’s
granted because of government immunity under the Eleventh Amendment. So the Board says the wife has no legal claim
on which they could win.
Did
the lower court get this right? Was the
government immune? No. Why isn’t the government immune to a claim
for trespass to land? The court holds
that the government has committed trespass to land, which is an intentional
tort. Governments are only immune
for negligence (although most government entities waive such immunity).
For “garden-variety” torts,
the state waives immunity.
Why
do they do this? Governments can get
insurance for garden-variety torts.
If
the government agent is engaged in a governmental function, the government will
be immune. They are not immune for
actions that are not really part of the job.
The
Restatement says that once the license or consent expires, your stuff on their
land constitutes trespass.
Trespass
to Chattels
Chattels
are personal property. Trespass to
chattels is the “intermeddling” with your stuff.
With
trespass to chattels, you must show actual damages. We care more about you being hurt than your
stuff being hurt.
As
far as damages go, you look at the amount of damages to the good.
Glidden
v. Szybiak
A
little girl got bitten by a dog.
There
is a statute mentioned in this case that says that people who own dogs are
liable for what the dogs do unless the damage was caused by someone committing
a tort. The court ruled that there was
no commission of a tort here. In order
for trespass to chattels to lie, the defendant would have had to demonstrate
that there was damage to the dog.
What
if a defendant places a bumper sticker for the Texas Beef Council on Oprah
Winfrey’s car? How would one quantify
one’s damages? You only get actual damages. The only damages you get are the cost of
getting the sticker removed and all the glue taken off.
Compuserve Inc.
v. Cyber Promotions, Inc.
Cyber
Promotions was sending spam. Compuserve got an injunction against Cyber Promotions to
keep them from spamming. Compuserve sues under the theory of trespass to chattels
because they say the spam overload is slowing down their computers.
Compuserve must show actual damages. What damages
do they show in this case? They show
that they have lost business because of the spam.
Note
that trespass to chattels typically involved tangible property. This is a clever use of the tort to apply to intangible
property.
Compuserve proved that they lost business and that their servers were slowed
down.
Both
the plaintiffs and the defendants used trespass to chattels. So why does Compuserve
win?
What’s
the distinction between this case and eBay v. Bidder’s Edge?
Pearson
v. Dodd
What
do you do when stuff that doesn’t appear to be worth much gets stolen?
What
happened in this case? Two former
employees of Senator Dodd went into his office and took some files. They copied the files and then replaced
them. They gave the copies to a third
party.
Why
do they go after the reporters? They don’t
want the reporters going after information you don’t want them getting.
The
employees have definitely committed the tort of invasion of privacy,
which we’ll cover later in the course.
The
plaintiff loses on the invasion of privacy claim because they weren’t the
people that actually did it.
The
trial court found that conversion had occurred, but on appeal, it was found
that since the defendants only temporarily dispossessed the plaintiff and
because it wasn’t important and unique intellectual property, conversion did
not lie. The information that was
allegedly converted does not have monetary value; it is not for sale.
A
hypothetical
A
car dealer refuses to return plaintiff’s keys to him. When the police come, the plaintiff gives
back the keys but calls the plaintiff a crybaby. Is there a cause of action here? Is it conversion? Is it conversion of the keys or of the car? What did the court do? They ruled that the defendant exercised
dominion over the car.
Would
you bother bringing this suit if you had an old, worthless car? You only want to sue for conversion when the
market value of the good converted is more than what it’s worth to you. Otherwise, you’d probably want the thing
back.
Conversion
of a chattel is the forced sale of that chattel. It gets sold, and then you get the proceeds
from the sale.